托伦斯系统的回响:新西兰新的土地转让法案

IF 0.8 Q2 LAW
E. Toomey
{"title":"托伦斯系统的回响:新西兰新的土地转让法案","authors":"E. Toomey","doi":"10.1108/JPPEL-12-2018-0035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nOn 12 November 2018, New Zealand's Land Transfer Act 2017 came into force. The purpose of this paper is to pinpoint some of the significant changes in the Act that challenge the fundamental concepts of the Torrens system of registration.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe paper addresses three significant reforms: a definition of land transfer fraud; the concept of immediate indefeasibility with limited judicial discretion and its impact on volunteers and the Gibbs v. Messer anomaly; and the compensation regime. Case studies illustrate the effect of these changes.\n\n\nFindings\nThe limited legislative definition of fraud reflects the common law and allows for any necessary flexibility. The new Act reiterates the principle of immediate indefeasibility but qualifies it with the introduction of some judicial discretion. This is a novel concept for the courts and will undoubtedly be dealt with cautiously. The author voices some disquiet with regard to some of the guidelines set out in s 55(4) of the Act. The compensation provisions introduce an element of an owner's culpability. An owner now runs the risk of reduced compensation if there has been a lack of proper care.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nThe implications of this research are fundamental for New Zealand's land transfer system.\n\n\nPractical implications\nThe limited judicial discretion will challenge the courts of New Zealand. The new compensation provisions will ensure that an owner's carelessness will be accountable.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis study is one of the first to analyse the Land Transfer Act 2017 (New Zealand). Its value extends beyond New Zealand shores as it has implications for global land transfer systems.\n","PeriodicalId":41184,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Property Planning and Environmental Law","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reverberations in the Torrens system: a new Land Transfer Act in New Zealand\",\"authors\":\"E. Toomey\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/JPPEL-12-2018-0035\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nOn 12 November 2018, New Zealand's Land Transfer Act 2017 came into force. The purpose of this paper is to pinpoint some of the significant changes in the Act that challenge the fundamental concepts of the Torrens system of registration.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nThe paper addresses three significant reforms: a definition of land transfer fraud; the concept of immediate indefeasibility with limited judicial discretion and its impact on volunteers and the Gibbs v. Messer anomaly; and the compensation regime. Case studies illustrate the effect of these changes.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThe limited legislative definition of fraud reflects the common law and allows for any necessary flexibility. The new Act reiterates the principle of immediate indefeasibility but qualifies it with the introduction of some judicial discretion. This is a novel concept for the courts and will undoubtedly be dealt with cautiously. The author voices some disquiet with regard to some of the guidelines set out in s 55(4) of the Act. The compensation provisions introduce an element of an owner's culpability. An owner now runs the risk of reduced compensation if there has been a lack of proper care.\\n\\n\\nResearch limitations/implications\\nThe implications of this research are fundamental for New Zealand's land transfer system.\\n\\n\\nPractical implications\\nThe limited judicial discretion will challenge the courts of New Zealand. The new compensation provisions will ensure that an owner's carelessness will be accountable.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nThis study is one of the first to analyse the Land Transfer Act 2017 (New Zealand). Its value extends beyond New Zealand shores as it has implications for global land transfer systems.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":41184,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Property Planning and Environmental Law\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Property Planning and Environmental Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/JPPEL-12-2018-0035\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Property Planning and Environmental Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JPPEL-12-2018-0035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

2018年11月12日,新西兰《2017年土地转让法案》生效。本文的目的是指出该法案中挑战托伦斯登记制度基本概念的一些重大变化。设计/方法/方法本文提出了三个重要的改革:土地转让欺诈的定义;有限司法自由裁量权下的立即不可行性概念及其对志愿者的影响以及吉布斯诉梅塞尔案的反常现象;还有补偿制度。案例研究说明了这些变化的影响。调查结果欺诈的有限立法定义反映了普通法,并允许任何必要的灵活性。新的《法令》重申了立即不可行的原则,但引入了一些司法裁量权,对其进行了限定。这对法院来说是一个新概念,毫无疑问会被谨慎处理。发件人对该法第55(4)条规定的一些准则表示一些不安。赔偿条款引入了船东的罪责因素。如果缺乏适当的护理,业主现在面临赔偿减少的风险。研究的局限性/启示本研究的启示对新西兰的土地转让制度具有根本性的意义。实际影响有限的司法自由裁量权将挑战新西兰的法院。新的赔偿规定将确保业主的疏忽将被追究责任。原创性/价值本研究是首批分析2017年土地转让法案(新西兰)的研究之一。它的价值超出了新西兰海岸,因为它对全球土地转让系统有影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reverberations in the Torrens system: a new Land Transfer Act in New Zealand
Purpose On 12 November 2018, New Zealand's Land Transfer Act 2017 came into force. The purpose of this paper is to pinpoint some of the significant changes in the Act that challenge the fundamental concepts of the Torrens system of registration. Design/methodology/approach The paper addresses three significant reforms: a definition of land transfer fraud; the concept of immediate indefeasibility with limited judicial discretion and its impact on volunteers and the Gibbs v. Messer anomaly; and the compensation regime. Case studies illustrate the effect of these changes. Findings The limited legislative definition of fraud reflects the common law and allows for any necessary flexibility. The new Act reiterates the principle of immediate indefeasibility but qualifies it with the introduction of some judicial discretion. This is a novel concept for the courts and will undoubtedly be dealt with cautiously. The author voices some disquiet with regard to some of the guidelines set out in s 55(4) of the Act. The compensation provisions introduce an element of an owner's culpability. An owner now runs the risk of reduced compensation if there has been a lack of proper care. Research limitations/implications The implications of this research are fundamental for New Zealand's land transfer system. Practical implications The limited judicial discretion will challenge the courts of New Zealand. The new compensation provisions will ensure that an owner's carelessness will be accountable. Originality/value This study is one of the first to analyse the Land Transfer Act 2017 (New Zealand). Its value extends beyond New Zealand shores as it has implications for global land transfer systems.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信